Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (291586)	2/9/2009 6:26:14 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794961

Obama: A go along to get along politician? by Donald So I've been thinking a bit about Obama. It shouldn't be surprising that I'm not his biggest fan. He talks a lot about post-partisanship and reform, but he has no record of doing it. In fact, he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Despite that, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, to believe that he means well and believes what he says. Why the disconnect then? Why does he talk the talk, but not walk the walk? Why does he speak out against racial obsession, corruption, and extremism, yet have such disturbing connections with the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and William Ayers?It may not be so much that he's a hypocrite, but rather, that he tends to take the easy way out. He came into politics in Chicago, where Wright, Rezko, and Ayers were among the movers and shakers. True, they have disturbing pasts, and do and say disturbing things, but why rock the boat? Why not just go with the flow, and deal with the people everyone else deals wtih, rather than take a principled stand? In the state legislature, why fight the system? Why not just go along with it? The one thing he most cites as a demonstration of his good judgement, being against the war in Iraq, hardly goes against this. He was in the state legislature at the time, and representing one of the most liberal districts in the state. Everyone he knew was against the war, so once again, he goes along with it. In the Senate, the pressure is even stronger, especially for a junior Senator. Support the Democratic agenda, vote with your caucus. Don't make waves. It's no accident that he has a perfect liberal voting record. Once again, it's the path of least resistance. I'm not sure running for President was all that different. People were talking about him running even as he was saying he wasn't ready. He was being encouraged on all sides. Why not toss his hat into the ring? It's not like he stood a chance to win anyway. Being against the war and for withdrawal was hardly an act of moral courage--at that point, with the war going badly, most people were against it. And with a record of being against it from the start, he had a decisive advantage in staking out the popular position that everyone else was scrabbling for. I really think he means well, but I don't think he has a consistent philosophy or principles strong enough to hold against the tide. When pushed to explain why he believes what he believes, he fumbles. When his position becomes unpopular, he retreats. He talks about hope and change, because those are popular things, but his agenda is the same as the liberal agenda has always been. Now, I could be taking him wrong. This is an impression from an engineer who's been paying only cursory attention to the election to this point. But it is what it looks like to me. donaldscrankshaw.com Going along with Pelosi and Reid is the easy thing.